VP Debate RIGGED!
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 10-01-2008 - 6:29am |
The moderator for Thursday's VP debate is an unabashed Obama supporter who has written a book promoting him:
VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'
Posted: September 30, 2008
8:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Gwen Ifill
The moderator of Thursday's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."
Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."
(Story continues below)
02) Type the numeric height and width into the corresponding fields.
03) Hit UPDATE to save this html file to the creative.
04) Upload your Flash ad .SWF and an image alternate .gif or .jpg as component files, if you have one. (note that If no gif alternate is uploaded and the user does not have the plugin version required to display the ad the system will FORCE the install.)
05) Type or paste the complete file name of the .SWF into the "Extra HTML" field and the complete file name of the image alternate into the "Extra Text" field, if you uploaded one,
06) Hit UPDATE again to save your changes.
07) Preview the ad, it should display and click properly.
Note - If you scroll down you can change various variables: the plugin version that allows for valid delivery (it should be the version number the ad was designed in or higher), the wmode (it can be changed to transparent if the ad is designed to inherit the sites background), the clickTAG capitalization (ClickTAG and ClickTag are common alternates) or even adding multiple click strings.
-->
-->
-->
"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.
Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn't her intent.
But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.
Some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate.
At that time she said, "I assume there will always be critics and just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy."
Ifill, who also works with her network's "NewsHour," is making preparations to moderate this week's debate between the two candidates for vice president, Palin and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden.. She told BlackAmericaWeb.com she thinks debates "are the best opportunity most voters have to see the candidates speaking to issues."
She said she is concerned only about getting straight answers from candidates.
"You do your best to get candidates to answer your question. But I also trust the viewers to understand when questions are not answered and reach their own conclusions," Ifill told BlackAmericaWeb.
"Four years ago, when neither John Edwards nor Dick Cheney proved capable of answering a question about the domestic epidemic of AIDS among African-American women, viewers flooded me with reaction," she said.
She said she will make her own decisions about what questions to ask, adding "the big questions matter."
In the Amazon.com promotion for her book, Ifill is described as "drawing on interviews with power brokers," such as Obama and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In an online video promoting her book, she is enthusiastic about "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it."
It focuses on four people, "one of them Barack Obama of course," she said.
"They are changing our politics and changing our nation," she said.
On Amazon.com, Ifill is praised for her "incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama."
"Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history," the review says.
She told AP her view of Obama: "I still don't know if he'll be a good president."
She also describes how she met him at the 2004 Democratic convention and since then has interviewed the Illinois senator and his family.
She also boasted that by the time of the debate, "I'll be a complete expert on both" Palin and Biden.
The debate will be held at Washington University in St. Louis, which has posted information about the evening's events online.
Ifill's profile there describes her as a longtime correspondent and moderator for national news programs and includes her service as moderator of the 2004 debate between Edwards and Cheney.
However, there's no mention of her upcoming book. Nor does the website for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is organizing the meetings of the candidates, mention her book.

Pages
>>> Ah, you mean: "I have no response, so I'm going to put the responsibility for supporting my argument onto you." That's okay. It's been fun debating with you today. (And I mean that.)
No, I mean that even if I were to provide example after example after example the evidence would still be anecdotal, as each person who bought the book wasn't interviewed personally as to the reason they bought the book. You seem to be a person very entrenched in her ideology, and unlikely to be open to such evidence...so why bother?
>>No, I mean that even if I were to provide example after example after example the evidence would still be anecdotal, as each person who bought the book wasn't interviewed personally as to the reason they bought the book.
And you've proven my point. There is no way to know for sure.
>>You seem to be a person very entrenched in her ideology, and unlikely to be open to such evidence...so why bother?
Actually, I wouldn't describe myself as an ideologue politically. I would say that I do love a good debate and have a difficult time with inconsistencies. I also dislike it when opinions are passed off as fact. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with opinions. I clearly have lots of them! *smile* But opinions are not facts.
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or claiming ignorance. It happens to everyone, and I've been known to even change my mind because of a well-placed argument.
By the way, I'm a print journalist. That's one of the reasons I'm so interested in this discussion. Professionally, I have a lot at stake when these issues come up.
Laura
>>You seem be a rather intelligent person, you've seen an posted descriptions of the book, can you show me where Ifill is taking issue with Obama?
No I can't. Nor can I show that she is endorsing him.
>>Obama's name is in the title and she coins this the "Obama age". Now, can you please explain to me how this is not a promotion of Obama?
I already addressed this in a previous post. I think you responded to it as well? (I get lost, because I typically view these in flat format, rather than in outline format.)
Laura
>>I'm sorry, your point is lost on me. How does this relate to the debate and the moderator at all?
I think what she's saying is that the fact that Obama's name is in the title doesn't mean that the book is favorable.
Laura
>>No, I mean that even if I were to provide example after example after example the evidence would still be anecdotal, as each person who bought the book wasn't interviewed personally as to the reason they bought the book.
>>> And you've proven my point. There is no way to know for sure.
I disagree. You can infer a lot based on trends...you simply wouldn't be convinced, even if the statistics were overwhelming.
>>You seem to be a person very entrenched in her ideology, and unlikely to be open to such evidence...so why bother?
>>> Actually, I wouldn't describe myself as an ideologue politically. I would say that I do love a good debate and have a difficult time with inconsistencies. I also dislike it when opinions are passed off as fact. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with opinions. I clearly have lots of them! *smile* But opinions are not facts.
Right...but an unwillingness to examine available evidence with an unbiased eye tends to bog down legitimate debate.
>>> I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or claiming ignorance. It happens to everyone, and I've been known to even change my mind because of a well-placed argument.
We'll have to see, won't we?
>>> By the way, I'm a print journalist. That's one of the reasons I'm so interested in this discussion. Professionally, I have a lot at stake when these issues come up.
Why would you have a lot at stake?
>>Right...but an unwillingness to examine available evidence with an unbiased eye tends to bog down legitimate debate.
Do tell me where I have not examined "available evidence with an unbiased eye." First of all, what is your proof of my bias? Secondly, where is your evidence? I have asked for it over and over again, but you simply say that it's "obvious." That's not evidence.
And really, you are more than welcome to your opinion. I'm merely asking how you came to this opinion. And thus far what you have offered is "it's obvious," "look into how books are published," and "any evidence I could give you would be anecdotal."
>>
>>> I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or claiming ignorance. It happens to everyone, and I've been known to even change my mind because of a well-placed argument.
>>We'll have to see, won't we?
Actually, I've already done so in this an other threads today. Caught me! *smile*
>>Why would you have a lot at stake?
When journalists are decried as biased, simply because of someone's opinion, it breeds the possibility of marring the profession -- not because of one incidence, but many. It has become standard opinion that journalists cannot be objective in their reporting (or while moderating a debate). When a journalist (Ifill in this case) does not do what she is supposed to do (disclose that she is writing a book that features Obama), it naturally creates doubt in the public mind. When the media is unfairly charged with bias, it naturally creates doubt in the public mind.
Many times, I am told by a source, "I hope you get these quotes right" *wink* *wink* If I were a journalist who screwed these things up, I'd say they had a point. But I'm not. I have a clean record of reporting objectively and accurately. (That's not to say that I haven't made mistakes from time to time.) This causes problems for me professionally. It is difficult to get sources to cooperate when they are distrustful.
And I think the press is partly to blame. But that's another post for another day. Just know that I don't hold readers/viewers entirely responsible. Clearly the press has screwed up royally in many cases.
I believe in the press. I don't give anyone in the press a pass, either. I believe that the press has an obligation to the public and vice versa. Without my honor and integrity, I don't have a leg to stand on -- simply because it is so easy to cry "bias!" without any evidence. People believe those cries, even when there is nothing to support them. That's what's at stake each time I track down a story.
Laura
>>I disagree. You can infer a lot based on trends...you simply wouldn't be convinced, even if the statistics were overwhelming.
I meant to address this: If a reporter said the same thing, she would be called on the carpet by her editor. Trend reporting is very dangerous and not very responsible (even if it is popular).
It's not enough to infer. I can infer the opposite based on the little bit of information that we actually have. To say that a person has a reason to swing a debate, based on very little (or no) evidence, is really unfair.
Laura
Pages